Thursday, October 20, 2016

KELOWNA BC CANADA - AN UNLEASHED PIT BULL AMBLED PEACEABLY UP TO NORM MCPARLAND WALKING HIS 2 SMALL DOGS - MOMENTS LATER THE MEAT GRINDER HAD A PEKINGESE LOCKED IN ITS JAWS GRINDING AWAY AT ITS HEAD AND FACE UNTIL IT WAS DEAD !!!

A Westside man whose dog was killed by a PIT BULL couldn’t believe the animal’s sudden viciousness and relentless ferocity.

The off-leash pit bull ambled peaceably up to Norm McParland as he was walking his two small dogs. Moments later, the bit pull had Baxter, McParland’s Pekingese, locked in its jaws.

McParland and another man fought desperately to free Baxter and eventually succeeded. But the dog’s head and face were so badly mauled that a veterinarian recommended it be put down.

The incident left McParland badly shaken, and it forever changed his views of pit bulls and their capacity for violence.

“I’d kind of been sitting on the fence as far as pit bulls go,” McParland said Wednesday. “But after going through something like this, there’s no doubt in my mind that they’re unpredictable, dangerous dogs.”

After the Oct. 1 attack, the pit bull’s owner agreed to have his dog put down.

But McParland still wants to draw attention to his experience in hopes of convincing people never to let their guard down around a pit bull, and to suggest what they should try if they ever find themselves in a situation like his.

McParland said he had no sense things were going to take a terrible turn as he walked his dogs down Michelle Crescent on the Westside. A pit bull, having apparently worked itself free of a short leash in a neighbour’s front yard, approached them in a non-threatening manner.

“There was no sign of aggression or malice,” McParland said. “He looked as calm as a pussy cat, as if he wanted to be petted.”

But the placid demeanour changed in an instant, without provocation or warning. The pit bull attacked Buddy, and McParland, aided by a neighbour who’d heard the commotion, fought to free the small, 10-year-old dog.

“We were hitting and kicking the pit bull, but it wouldn’t let go,” McParland said.

He then remembered something he’d read about how to fend off a pit bull attack.

“I’d seen something about pulling the dog’s two front legs as far apart as you can,” McParland said. “Apparently, the pain that causes to their breastbone convinces them to stop the attack.”

The pit bull did indeed break off the attack, but it was too late.

Baxter’s injuries were so severe that he was euthanized later that day.

McParland said his wife has long had the view that pit bulls were dangerously unpredictable. He wishes now he’d picked up his dogs when he first saw the pit bull coming toward them.

“Something just clicked in that dog and it turned into a killer,” McParland said. “Honestly, I don’t think he could have helped it. They’ve just got something in their genes.”

A Westside man whose dog was killed by a pit bull couldn’t believe the animal’s sudden viciousness and relentless

1 comment:

Anonymous
said...

Ah, the story of people that don't want to believe pit bulls are evil, until they see it for themselves.

The internet is littered with thousands of stories of pit bulls mauling all sorts of living creatures to death. It is not difficult to find recent stories of all sorts of horrible attacks, killings, maimings, you name it.

I feel sorry for the guy, but picking up his dog would not have helped. Breed Specific Legislation would have. Thankfully, Canada is a little smarter than the USA when it comes to banning pit bulls. No matter how hard the nutters try to prevent BSL, nutters can't stop pit bulls from showing us what they're bred to do.

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.